The fallout from the leak of former British ambassador to Washington Sir Kim Darroch’s confidential memos continued over the weekend, with reports claiming officials have identified a suspect in the investigation.
At the same time, the Mail on Sunday published further details from the leaks despite a controversial Scotland Yard warning against doing so.
Who leaked the memos?
Investigators “think they know who did the leaking,” The Sunday Times cited and unnamed government source as saying. “It’s now a case of building a case that will stand up in court. It was someone with access to historical files. They went in and grabbed a range of material. It was quite crude.”
Theories that the leaked material was hacked and released by a foreign state have been ruled out. Instead, the paper revealed the suspect had been established “amid ‘panic’ in Whitehall that a ‘pro-Brexit Kim Philby’ figure has been trying to undermine officials not deemed supportive enough of leaving the EU.”
Freedom of the press under threat
The news came as politicians and journalists rallied in defence of press freedom after Scotland Yard issued a warning to the media on Friday, suggesting that criminal charges could be faced if further documents were released.
“The statement appeared timed to prevent Sunday newspapers from publishing more leaked memos”, noted the Los Angeles Times.
On Saturday, Both Conservative leadership candidates, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, weighed in to accuse the police of attempting to curb the press.
“A prosecution on this basis would amount to an infringement on press freedom and have a chilling effect on public debate,” Boris Johnson said at a campaign event Saturday.
Scotland Yard responded with what The Guardian interpreted as a U-turn. “The Metropolitan Police respect the rights of the media and has no intention of seeking to prevent editors from publishing stories in the public interest in a liberal democracy”, said assistant commissioner Neil Basu in a statement, adding “the media hold an important role in scrutinising the actions of the state.”
Nevertheless, he reiterated his warning from Friday: “We have also been told the publication of these specific documents, now knowing they may be a breach of the OSA (Official Secrets Act), could also constitute a criminal offence and one that carries no public interest defence.”
“We know these documents and potentially others remain in circulation. We have a duty to prevent as well as detect crime and the previous statement was intended to alert to the risk of breaching the OSA.”
Former Chancellor and current editor of the Evening Standard, George Osbourne, came down heavily on Basu’s statement, tweeting:
“It would send a dangerous chill through newsrooms if the police attempt to use the leak to file charges against the journalist who received the information and the newspaper that published it – having presumably deemed publication to be in the public interest”, reflected Deborah Haynes, foreign affairs editor for Sky News.
Some have emerged in support of the police on the issue. Speaking on the BBC’s Today, former defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon argued that “if they [the press] are receiving stolen material they should give it back to their rightful owner. They should also be aware of the huge damage that has already been done, and the potentially even greater damage to be done by further breaches of the Official Secrets Act.”
Last Sunday, details of diplomatic cables were published in which Darroch branded the Trump administration “inept” and “incompetent”. The ambassador later resigned. Defying Scotland Yard’s warning not to publish any further details, Isabel Oakeshott and Glen Owen revealed yesterday in the Mail on Sunday:
“Sir Kim told No 10 in a ‘diptel’ (diplomatic telegram) that Mr Trump’s Administration was ‘set upon an act of diplomatic vandalism’. The Ambassador wrote that Mr Trump appeared to be abandoning the deal for ‘personality reasons’ because it had been agreed by his predecessor Barack Obama.”
“Sir Kim suggested there were splits among the President’s closest advisers and said the White House lacked a ‘day-after’ strategy on what to do following withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the deal was called.”
